UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
 

REGION IX
 

75 Hawthorne Street
 

San Francisco, CA 94105·3901
 

OFFICE OF THE MAR 23 2012 REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR 

Mr. Seyed Sadredin 

Air Pollution Control Officer 

San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District 

1990 East Gettysburg Avenue 

Fresno, California 93726 

Dear Mr. Sadredin: 

Thank you and your Directors for taking the time to meet with me, Deborah Jordan, and Kerry Drake in 

Fresno on January 26. We had a productive discussion regarding how best to engage with each other 

and our partners during the PM2.S planning process. 

Our overarching agreement was that the forthcoming PM 2.5 plan should be based on the best science 

and deliberated in an open, collaborative process. As you are aware, on March 13, we met with several 

community non-govemmental organizations (NGOs) to encourage their early involvement in the 

process. Some of the same issues that we discussed were raised at the March 13 NGO meeting. I have 

made reference to these issues in the appropriate sections below. 

Our common goal is clean air for the San Joaquin Valley (SJV). I am encouraged by the productive 

meetings we have had recently as we all work toward bringing the area into attainment. Below, I have 

outlined specific topics that have emerged from our discussions and related actions items: 

Planning 

1.	 The District and EPA agreed that given continued public concern over ammonia emissions, 

the more stringent PM 2.5 standard, and the different levels of pollutants in the atmosphere 

today, we need to use the best available current science to evaluate the role of ammonia in 

PM 2.5 formation in the SJV. As you know, we've been working with, and have commented 

on, ARB's draft modeling protocol for the PM2.S Plan. While we believe the protocol has 

excellent coverage of key technical points, and addresses important provisions of EPA's 

photochemical modeling guidance, it does not provide for adequate exploration of the 

potential benefits of controlling emissions of PM2.S precursors other than NOx. Given the 

severity of the PM2.S problem in the Valley, we believe it is important to explore alternative 

control strategies. 

Please note that on March 13, the NGOs voiced concern over the issue of precursors and 

modeling. At that meeting, we agreed to encourage ARB and the District to, at a minimum, 

host a public workshop on the technical underpinnings of the upcoming PM2.S plan, in 

advance of its adoption. We also noted that both the Bay Area and South Coast districts have 

standing technical review committees for modeling that are open to the public. Workshop 

topics could include monitoring, emission inventory development, and modeling, and the 

workshop could provide general overviews, as well as focused sessions to give more 

Printed Of! Recycll!d Papl!r 
technical detail to improve the public's scientific understanding. It could also address 

questions and issues that have come up in past plan comments regarding precursors, or that 

the public could be invited to supply beforehand. 

2.	 The District and EPA agreed to work with NGOs to solicit their involvement and comments 

in the PM 2.5 planning process. We also agreed to attend standing meetings that the NGOs 

currently have in place, and to explore grants, such as travel funding, to facilitate their 

involvement in the process. You also informed us of District plans to help the California 

Partnership for the SJY fund an independent consultant to evaluate PM 2.5 attainment. 

3.	 The District and EPA agreed to work together early in the process to identify potential 

measures that could collectively contribute to expeditious attainment, to meet the Clean Air 

Act's (CAA) reasonably available control measure (RACM) requirement. 

4.	 The District and EPA agreed that realistic rule effectiveness should be documented in plans 

using compliance and reporting data. 

Rules 

5.	 The District and EPA agreed that the percent of profits test to determine control feasibility in 

rules should be used only as an enhancement to the typical cost per ton data, and that you 

would also use public health data to enhance feasibility analyses using the white paper 

created by your Environmental Justice Advisory Group (EJ AG) and adopted by the 

Governing Board. We agreed that EPA and District staff will work together earlier in the 

process to identify issues with feasibility analyses. 

Please not that on March 13, the NGOs raised this issue as well. We plan on continuing this 

discussion with the interested organizations. 

Technology 

6.	 The District and EPA agreed that using incentive funding to deploy technologies that exist, 

but are currently too expensive, is key to meeting standards in the short-term. We also 

agreed that short-term technology implementation should consider long-term needs, not just 

for criteria pollutants, but also for climate change and air toxics, and to work together to 

develop a timeline of technologies we will work on together. 

Communication 

7.	 The District and EPA agreed to work together to develop a communication strategy to 

highlight the top 10 things we hope to accomplish in any given year in order to frame the 

issues in a way the public can understand. 

Monitoring 

8.	 The District and EPA agreed that the ARB and the District needs to complete monitoring site 

repairs or relocations quickly to minimize downtime and data loss and to avoid the inability 

to demonstrate attainment or maintenance. We agreed, in principle, that the SJY should have 

a near-roadway N02 monitor. We agreed that EPA and district staff would work together to 

discuss monitors we are concerned about, to make an effort to consolidate to fewer stations 

where it makes sense to "right size" the network, and accordingly, to streamline the 

procedures for moving monitors and to develop a good communication strategy for any 

moves. 
Enforcement 

9.	 The District and EPA agreed that Region 9 will facilitate a direct relationship between the 

District and the EPA Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance (OECA), and that 

when the District makes their annual trip to Washington, D.C., you will meet with OECA 

with specific requests, such as reducing the burden of the enforcement reporting system. 

EPA will continue to have an enforcement presence in the SlY and to identify those 

situations where we can work together to develop effective targeting. 

Permitting 

10. The District and EPA agreed to support development of procedures for how the District will 

provide notice to disadvantaged communities in other languages, as you work through your 

EJAG to develop ideas for places to post notice, such as community centers, and to use 

technology and video-conferencing. 

Additional Issues 

Risk Based Strategy 

The NGOs, on the March 13 meeting, raised the District's Risk Based Strategy as a concern. 

E?A committed to clarify our position in future meetings. 

In general, we applaud the District's efforts to look at how you might prioritize strategies to 

achieve the greatest public health benefits, particularly those that can reduce risks and maximize 

benefits to overburdened communities. EPA will continue to work with the District to assure 

that the PM2.5 plan meets all applicable Clean Air Act requirements for attaining the mass-based 

PM2.5 standard as expeditiously as practicable. 

Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act 

The NGOs, in the March 13 meeting, raised issues related to Title VI. Implementing Title VI of 

the 1964 Civil Rights Act is a priority for the EPA. As you are aware, Title VI protects people 

from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs or activities that receive 

EPA's financial assistance. EPA would welcome the oppOltunity to discuss this with you further 

to help ensure that the best opportunities for taking environmental justice concerns into 

consideration are identified during this critical stage in the development of your PM 2.5 plan. 

As part of this discussion, we would like to discuss how incentive programs could be used and 

targeted to mitigate the impact of ongoing nonattainment on overburdened communities. Such 

communities can be selected by using the recent UC Davis report: Land of Risk, Land of 

Opportunity, or other appropriate methodologies. 

Please call me, Deborah, or Kerry at any time. Thank you again for the positive and frank discussion. 

cc: James Goldstene, Executive Officer, California Air Resources Board 

Kevin Hall, Director, Central Valley Air Quality Coalition